Deprogramming Note: A Word About CH Patron Shiv Michel Houellebecq

S.S. wrote a review of Michel Houellebecq’s latest novel, Submission. Le Chateau was kindly linked in the review. I’d like to issue a small correction. Michel Houellebecq wasn’t so much a “major influence” on this ‘umble reatalk retreat as he was a kindred spirit. The Houellebecqian and Heartistian worldviews happened to align and that is why he was granted shivhood by this blog, but in point of fact CH wasn’t aware of Houellebecq’s oeuvre until late in the game, long after similar themes (and coy conclusions) were explored here.

CH themes and observations were culled primarily from the field; if those T&Os resemble Houellebecq’s sharp scrawls, then that is evidence Houellebecq knows of what he writes.

A quibbling quibble. Houellebecq, along with Tom Wolfe, are the greatest novelists of our age and, not coincidentally, they are also alt-right, neodark, reactoshivvian crimethinkers and sexual market surveyors of unparalleled keen perception.

The Left’s causes are exhausted, and their art reflects that. The Right’s causes have only just gathered strength, and their art is ascendant. Rebellion has always been a friend to expression.

A Knock-On Benefit Of Ending The Friendzone Industrial Complex

We share a hearty chuckle over the avoidable miseries of friendzoned beta males, but there are dead serious implications should the practice ever fall out of favor or get deprived of its seemingly endless source stream of dupes, chodes, and tools.

The fewer beta orbiters willing or available to provide sexless emotional and financial support to dual-mate strategizing (“alpha fux, beta bux”) girls, the more pressure is applied to the alpha male lovers of those girls to assume the “beta bux” relationship responsibilities abjured by the former friendzoned betas.

In theory, this gutting of the friendzone industrial complex should result in three dating market adjustments:

– Girls choosing less conspicuously caddish jerks as lovers. Men who can’t or won’t offer any relationship dependability will have a harder time “locking in” girlfriends for the long haul.

– Girls becoming less disposed to take beta male attention for granted. This will mean that when betas do show romantic interest, they won’t immediately get stuffed into the LJBF hugbox.

– Girls experiencing more difficulty advertising-by-beta orbiter proxy their “no muss no fuss” sexual accessibility to roving alphas. As shartiste explains,

I’m growing more fond of my theory that girls use friend-zoned guys as signals to draw in low-investment alphas. Call it the Conspicuous Cuck Strategy. Look at her, framing him as a prop while she eye-fucks the camera and displays cleavage for any alpha onlooker. Come and get it, I know you’ll fuck and run but the cucks all ready!

I no longer hookup with attached girls, but I did a few times in less discriminating days. The girls ALWAYS talked about their bf/husband in the most beta terms possible, even though reality was probably a bit more shade of grey. They’d talk him down so hard and pitifully, not for any illusion that she’d dump him or I’d whisk her away, but it seemed more to signal just how bad she needed an alpha fuck, and simultaneously assure there’d be no reprisal. This is “flirting” to them. Its kinda disgusting, honestly.

It takes two to tango, and the female exploiting the asexual provisioning of the cuck is just as complicit as the cuck accepting his role and enabling the girl’s dual mate strategy. In this analysis, the girl is more malevolent, but the cuck is more contemptible.

Nevertheless, I don’t think girls are using beta orbiters as dinner bells for fly by night alphas. Not consciously, at least. It’s more reasonable to interpret a woman’s motivation to establish and sustain friendzoned eunuchs as exactly what it is: a status display to other women, and a practical consideration to “cover all her bases”. One can easily imagine a reproductive advantage in the EEA to women who gathered the resources of both sexual and asexual admirers.

Ideally, women want the cad and the dad in the same über alpha male; and women with very high SMV can pull off this coup. But for the majority of women who can’t, acquiring an entourage of harmless castrati isn’t without its twisted appeal. Think about how much the friendzoned beta orbiter offers women:

therapy.
extreme listening skills.
cashmoney.
endless ego-boosting flattery (without demanding reciprocation).
and, perhaps most crucially, a white knight perimeter defense against hopeful betas (and conversely a character-testing gauntlet for aggressive alphas).

So in theory reducing the frequency of friendzoning in the dating market should redound to the benefit of beta males and the detriment of alpha males.

But theory often gets abused trying to make sense of female sexuality. In practice, as the supply of beta male emotional tampons shrinks, what I think likelier to happen is that the alpha cads remain objects of female desire, but girls will have to find alternate outlets to absorb their bitching and moaning about their jerky boyfriends, which could mean girl friends and family. Hearteningly, or maddeningly depending on your degree of cynicism, it could also mean girls “amp up” their sexual coquettishness around beta males to secure the same amount of harmless male attention they used to get for less effort (and for less risk of misconstrual).

On balance, it’s a good thing to reduce the incidence of friendzoning, even if it means more lesser betas wind up alone with their dignity, instead of alone with a cute girl tormenting them with her unattainable nearness. If betas are unwilling to prostrate themselves to self-aggrandizing girls who will never put out for them, there might follow a morale boost and an impetus to learn and acquire the whole panoply of masculine traits that coaxes from girls the kind of hugs that really matter: post-orgasmic leg hugs.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, girls deprived of pushover eunuchs might start to view those betas in a more sex-positive light.

“Your daughter will marry a bearded man”

The Muslim invader smells weakness and fear in the enemy. He is aroused in his confidence, and reveals his id monster in all its primal glory.

Germans, and GoodWhite equalist leftoids in general, have no one to blame but themselves for their autogenocide. The occupiers they have let in are just doing what occupiers do when no native sons will put them under the boot. Will the White man find his heart again? Or has the rot reached the bone? The answer to this question will determine the shape of the 21st Century.

Thousand-Cuck Stare

We’re all familiar with the thousand-cock stare — the glazed, unfocused, hollow eyes of a broken slut in the grips of a delirium from having taken a few too many rides on the cock carousel.

There’s a male analogue to the thousand-cock stare:

This is the thousand-cuck stare, the tormented look of a man in the friendzone trying desperately to hide his pain from the world. His suffering is exquisite; always within sniffing distance of prime poosy but who may as well be twelve parsecs from ever reaching vaghalla. He is cucked by: a jerk boyfriend, a mandingo lover, his own futility, the cosmic overlord. Another man has what he wants, but the poor bastard doesn’t even have the dignity or good sense to stop being a party to his humiliation. Instead of admitting failure, he’ll pretend as if his blue balls are a badge of honor and his sexless circumstance is his free choice.

But his eyes will belie the massive backlog of sperm in his aching testes. If you see a man with the thousand-cuck stare, be on guard. There’s no telling when he might snap, like John Boehner remembering his mudsharking daughter and what his grandkids will look like.

The Reason Women Initiate 70% Of Divorces

Executive Summary: There’s a tight link between female fertility and divorce.

Do women initiate the majority of divorces because men are innately “badder” than wives? Or, is it more likely something else which motivates wives — something intrinsic to the demands of their female desires — to push for marital dissolution at greater rates than husbands push for it?

CH has tackled the subject of female-initiated frivorce. It’s good to revisit the topic for clarification, because there are a lot of people who still labor under delusions about the malign effects on society of the divorce industrial complex, and what exactly incentivizes wives to file for the majority of divorces.

Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):

1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.

A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.

2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.

Regarding the supposed post-divorce drop in women’s standard of living, WPrice added:

I tend to reject the statistic, because it usually refers to a feminist study from the 1980s (when academic feminism had carte blanche to make things up). However, it’s true that a woman’s income often looks low on paper following divorce. This is because child support, child tax credits, EIC, property transferred to woman from ex-husband and other benefits are not counted as income. In the meanwhile, it looks like a man’s expenses have gone down, because he no longer gets to claim these expenses on his tax returns. The truth, however, is that she gets all of the supposed increase in his living standard and then some directly in her pocket. The statistic is so deliberately dishonest that it ought to be called what it is: a lie.

Divorce is deliberately set up to ensure that women lose as little as possible when leaving their marriage for whatever reason. Men, of course, are punished no matter what the reason.

The reason our laws, and in particular divorce laws, are biased in favor of women, has to do with the human psychological underpinnings that emerge from the Fundamental Premise.

The divorce rate skyrocketed right after no-fault divorce was passed in CA in 1969, followed by most other states. It has since declined from its mid-1970s high and leveled off (but still nowhere its historical lows in the US pre-1969), so whatever shock to the marital system no-fault divorce instigated seemed to have worked itself out by the 1980s.

CH is fond of the Diversity + Proximity = War equation, but there’s another one we love just as much for its pithy descriptive power:

Options = Instability.

A young woman in her nubile prime has more romantic options than a same-age young man. This makes commitment at that age inherently unstable (especially for naive beta males). The formula reverses for men, who experience a rise in romantic options as they get older and gain social and financial status, (and given that men of all ages are attracted to female youth and beauty, there would be incentives for an older husband to trade his status for a younger second wife).

Theoretically, then, we should find that female-initiated divorce is mostly by YOUNG wives, and male-initiated divorce by OLDER husbands. And that is pretty much the case… but for the former only.

From Dalrock:

As I’ve shared previously the data shows divorce rates are highest when the wife is young and has the incentive to commit divorce theft, and lowest when the wife is older and the husband has the incentive to commit divorce theft.  Divorce is actually least likely when conventional wisdom suggests it occurs most, when the wife is older and the husband has the opportunity to dump her for  a younger woman.

On the surface, this result is strange. But thinking about it, I can tell you why the divorce rate doesn’t follow a symmetrical “U-curve” that reflects older husbands “trading up” for younger second wives: men, unlike women, are simply more comfortable keeping two lovers simultaneously. Husbands don’t have a problem screwing a mistress and coming home to a doting wife. Wives DO have a problem screwing around and maintaining a happy facade with their cucked beta hubbies.

In short, men have a harem mentality. Women don’t.

One glaring correlation that emerges when examining divorce trends is that the divorce rate mirrors women’s likelihood of getting pregnant (aka how fertile she is, aka how hot she is).

The divorce rate and the female fertility rate, if superimposed, are practically IDENTICAL. Divorce is, to a great degree, a function of a woman’s sexual desirability and her options in the sexual market. The more romantic attention from desirable men a young wife can command, the more unstable her marriage.

If stable marriages are a noble societal goal, then encouraging later marriages would work to lower the divorce rate. But, this strategy also works to lower the marital fertility rate, as older mothers have fewer children than younger mothers. Plus, beta males with rising SMV (sexual market value) don’t much like marrying road worn and put away hard women in their 30s, and they won’t if they don’t have to.

A better social strategy would be to instruct young men in the ways of seducing women — both premaritally and maritally — so that they can better tame and redirect their young wives’ hypergamous compulsions to themselves and away from alpha male interlopers. Still another possibility is pairing off younger wives with older husbands, for a balanced SMV match. Or, removing the disincentives to stay married that have become part of divorce and family laws.

(FYI, women will always receive the bulk of child support, and child custody, because women are naturally disposed to the task of child-rearing in a way that men aren’t. Most men don’t much like the drudgery of child-raising, but for that minority of ex-husbands and fathers who crave the joys of being a full-time dad, the family court system should be reformed to better sympathize with their needs.)

Bottom line: If divorce laws are grossly unfair to either sex, they need to be changed. Lamely indulging in “life is unfair” white knightism posturing is no excuse for accepting the continuance of bad laws. (Perspective: “racial quotas are wrong.” “life is unfair.” See how that doesn’t work?)

Halloween Costume Ideas

MattW had a great Halloween costume idea.

Best halloween costume idea:

Put on a black beard and a turban, and some bomb-like electronics around your middle under a vest or zip-up hoody, then show people and tell them you invented a clock.

😆 Nice. It’d be really funny if you wrote the word “CLOCK” in black Sharpie on a bundle of dynamite.

I was set to write that Trump costumes would be all the rage this year (the more daring readers can sport a spiffy “Make America White Again” hat to keep that blond bouffant under control), but Matt’s costume suggestion is better. Wear it, and see how many SWPLs and SJWs smile wanly, then look confused, then slowly turn apoplectic with sputtering indignation as they realize you are making fun of one of their icons.

PS For the scalzied dads with daughters who can bench more than they can, a website that sells grrlpower Halloween costumes. Yes, you can dress your little tyke up like Ruth “Baby” Ginsburg, or Lena Dunham (sexual molestation not included).

Why Didn’t Trump Go For Rubio’s Cucky Throat?

During the most recent GOP debate (which I didn’t watch but read about afterward), Trump was asked about his beef with Mark Cuckersperg, which turned to the subject of the immigration scam known as H1Bs, a program which is essentially a green light for tech corps to import slave labor to do the jobs, at a fraction of the wage price, that Americans already do.

Trump evaded. Or, worse, according to some he gave a response that was at complete odds with his campaign’s own immigration policy paper (written by Jeff Sessions). It was his one big slip in the debate, but it was near-lethal to a campaign that won over people primarily on the strength of its promise to close the borders.

The original question referred to a tweet that Trump, or a Trump staff Twatter, made about Rubio, calling him “Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator”, an insult aimed at Rubio’s support of the H1B scam. It was a great zing, because it was true. Yet Trump backed away from his own zinger, when he could have used that point in the debate to go for Rubio’s throat and possibly deliver a mortal wound that could knock Rubio out of the race. I mean, ferkrissakes, nobody likes Mark Cuckersperg, except maybe his waifu.

Trump missed a golden opportunity to stick the shiv in a true cuck, and likely hurt himself with his weak backpedaling.

My question to the CH readers: Why do you think Trump avoided the easy shot?

I have a few guesses:

– Trump doesn’t read his own policy papers, and is only against “open borders” inasmuch as the topic can be used as a stand-in for runaway rapes and violent crimes.
– Trump has a personal affinity for Rubio, and the tweet in question was made without his knowledge.
– Trump isn’t in this race to win it, and this was the start of him taking a dive for the candidate that he prefers, or that friends of his prefer. (This speculation requires believing that Trump only entered the race to knock ¡Jabe! out.)
– Trump wants to tone down his rebel image now that he’s made it through a couple of rounds, to improve his electability later on. (This is a risky strategy so soon in the nomination process.)
– Or, Trump was off his game. (We all have our beta moments.)

Spinning this less cynically, Trump might think he’s got this nomination wrapped up, and he’s already casting an eye to the general election, when he’ll have to deal with a 24/7 hostile leftoid media haranguing him about his “racism” against mexican peasants.

UPDATE

Trump has already clarified his brief immigration backpedal. Very nice. He’s a quick learner. This supports my guess that he was just off his game at the debate. Trump 2016!